Plaintiff Jacqueline McGee sued defendant Missouri Bootheel Regional Consortium, Inc. (MBRC) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Before the court is Defendant MBRC’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
MBRC, a not-for-profit community-based organization, advertised a position for a re-entry program coordinator in 2019. The job requirements included a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field, three years of experience in criminal justice or related fields, and two years of management experience. Plaintiff McGee, who was 67 years old at the time, claims she submitted applications for the position three times: once via website and twice via U.S. Mail. MBRC contends it did not receive any application from McGee and thus did not interview her. MBRC interviewed three other individuals and hired Mark Bartlett, a 61-year-old male with a master’s degree and over nine years of direct experience working in a correctional system.
McGee filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC and received a dismissal and right to sue letter on October 5, 2020. She then filed this lawsuit claiming sex discrimination under Title VII and age discrimination under the ADEA.
Legal Analysis
Receipt of Application:The court found a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether MBRC received McGee’s application. McGee provided evidence that she submitted her application multiple times and received an online confirmation, while MBRC maintained it never received her application.
Sex Discrimination Claim
Prima Facie Case: The court determined that McGee belonged to a protected class as a female and that a disputed issue of fact existed regarding whether she applied for the job. The court then addressed whether McGee was qualified for the position.
Qualifications: MBRC argued that McGee was not qualified because she lacked the required experience. However, the court found that McGee’s professional experience appeared to meet the written requirements of the posted position. The court noted that changes to job requirements that appear tailored for another person could lead to an inference of discrimination.
Burden-Shifting Framework: Having established a prima facie case, the burden shifted to MBRC to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the hiring decision. MBRC stated it did not receive McGee’s application and that she would not have been the best applicant even if they had. The court found that McGee provided adequate evidence to rebut these arguments at the summary judgment stage.
Pretext: The court determined that a question of fact existed as to whether MBRC’s stated reasons for hiring a man over McGee were pretextual. The court noted that the “main goal” of finding someone with significant direct experience in the criminal justice system was not mentioned in the written job description and could be seen as tailored to match the qualifications of the hired candidate.
Age Discrimination Claim: McGee conceded that MBRC was entitled to summary judgment on her age discrimination claim.
The court denied MBRC’s motion for summary judgment on McGee’s sex discrimination claim and granted summary judgment on her age discrimination claim.
Schrag on Law 